Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 89-7009

Citation282 U.S.App.D.C. 314,894 F.2d 1354
Decision Date19 January 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-7009,89-7009
Parties51 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1372, 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,586, 282 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 58 USLW 2437 Ralph L. MINKER, Appellant, v. BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH and Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

David S. Eggert, with whom Randal M. Shaheen, Washington, D.C. was on the brief, for appellant.

Thomas R. Kline, with whom Thomas E. Starnes, Washington, D.C. was on the brief, for appellees.

Before MIKVA and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges, and GESELL, * District Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MIKVA.

Concurring Opinion filed by District Judge GESELL.

MIKVA, Circuit Judge:

Appellant, a Methodist minister, challenges a lower court order dismissing his complaint for age discrimination and breach of contract against the United Methodist Church. Appellant charges that he was denied a pastorship due to age discrimination, and that this violated federal and state law as well as his "contract" with the church. The district court determined that the first amendment prohibits the government from regulating internal church decisions about the promotion of pastors, because churches have broad discretion in determining who may speak for the church. 699 F.Supp. 954 (D.D.C.1988). We affirm the district court's ruling to the extent that it dismissed appellant's age discrimination claims. We remand for further proceedings on the contractual claim that appellees breached their promise to give appellant a more suitable congregation at the earliest possible time.

BACKGROUND

Appellant, Ralph Minker, is a 63-year-old Methodist minister employed by the Baltimore Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. After serving for ten years as a vocational counselor, Minker requested that he be returned to a pastoral appointment in 1982. The following year, he assumed the pastorate of Mount Rainier Methodist Church on a temporary, emergency basis. Complaint p 8-9.

Minker alleges that the Mount Rainier assignment paid him less than what a pastor of his qualifications and experience would normally receive. Id. Minker complained to the district superintendent who, he claims, assured him that he would be "moved to a congregation more suited to his training and skills, and more appropriate in level of income, at the earliest appropriate time." Id. at p 13. Minker made repeated requests for reassignment thereafter, but as of June 1987 four years had elapsed without Minker being offered a new assignment. Id. at p 14.

In July 1987, Minker filed suit in district court alleging that he had been denied a rightful "promotion" solely on the basis of his age. Minker asserted that appellee Bishop Joseph Yeakel--who is responsible for all pastoral appointments--had informed him that "he should not expect a new better level appointment and that Methodist pastors in their fifties cannot expect growth opportunities in new appointments." Id. at p 16. Minker further claimed that persons younger than he were selected for many open appointments. Id.

The complaint alleged that appellees violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621, 623 (1983), the Maryland Human Relations Law, Md.Ann.Code Art. 49B, Sec. 16, and Minker's "contract" with his church. Complaint at p 25. The contract claim was based both on the district superintendent's oral promises to find him a more suitable congregation, and on passages from the Book of Discipline--"the book of law of the United Methodist Church"--concerning the assignment of pastorships. Section 529.1 of the Book of Discipline states that "appointments Initially, Minker sought monetary damages and an injunction against age discrimination under the ADEA. He has since been appointed pastor of the Corkran Memorial Church, and now desires only damages and a general injunction against future discrimination.

are to be made without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, color, or age, except for the provisions of mandatory retirement."

Appellees moved to dismiss, claiming that the first amendment barred appellant's suit. The district court granted the appellees' motion. 699 F.Supp. 954. The court held that applying state and federal antidiscrimination legislation or common law principles of contract to Minker's claims would violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment because it would interfere with church decisions concerning "whose voice speaks for the church." Id. at 955. The district court concluded that appellant's suit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Minker appeals on two grounds. First, he contends that the first amendment does not apply to his statutory claims. He argues that the Church has no religious policy permitting age discrimination, and no religious belief can be implicated by the facts alleged. Second, he argues that the first amendment cannot bar enforcement of his private employment contract because the issue of breach does not implicate first amendment principles. Alternatively, he contends that even if the facts might implicate religious beliefs, the district court's decision to dismiss was premature since he should be afforded an opportunity to show that his contract claim does not create an excessive entanglement with church religious policy.

I AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Minker argues that application of the ADEA or the Maryland age discrimination provision would not violate either the free exercise clause or the establishment clause of the first amendment. Because we find that maintenance of appellant's suit would violate the free exercise clause, we need not consider whether it would also violate the establishment clause.

The first amendment provides that Congress may not interfere with the free exercise of religion. The free exercise clause bars enforcement of a statute whose application would directly affect religious beliefs. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 689, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2101, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1970); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1971) (refusing effect to a mandatory school attendance law as applied to Amish children). Appellant argues that since the Church has already declared its opposition to age discrimination in employment decisions in the Book of Discipline, it cannot now claim that it has a religious belief supporting age discrimination. If no religious beliefs are involved, he reasons, no first amendment rights are implicated.

Appellant seeks to apply a "plain meaning" rule to interpreting the antidiscrimination provisions of the Book of Discipline ("Discipline"). We doubt that such a canon of construction is suitable to canon law. There is substantial ambiguity about the Church's position on age discrimination at the time this case arose. The 1984-88 version of the Book of Discipline provided that appointments must take into account the "unique needs of a charge ... and also the gifts and graces of a particular pastor." Discipline at p 531. These gifts and graces include the pastor's "experience and continuing education, professional experience, records of performance, [and] age." Id. at p 531.2 (emphasis added). This suggests that, the nondiscrimination provision notwithstanding, the Methodist Church does have an asserted ecclesiastical interest in considering age in appointing pastors.

We need not consider the precise contours of church policy, however, to reject Minker's claim that lay courts have jurisdiction to hear his age discrimination claims. Rather, as the district court held, determination of "whose voice speaks for the church" is per se a religious matter.

                699 F.Supp. at 955.    We cannot imagine an area of inquiry less suited to a temporal court for decision;  evaluation of the "gifts and graces" of a minister must be left to ecclesiastical institutions.  This is the view of every court that has been confronted by this genre of dispute.  See, e.g., Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 3333, 92 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986)
                

In McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S.Ct. 132, 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972), the Fifth Circuit ruled that the free exercise clause precluded the application of Title VII to a minister's claim that her church had discriminated against her on the basis of her gender. The court reasoned that since the minister is the "lifeblood" of the church, the assignment of a minister is inherently of prime ecclesiastical concern. It observed that applying Title VII to assignment decisions would involve the court in substantive ecclesiastical matters and permit courts to interfere with church administration. Merely maintaining such a suit would produce "an investigation and review of ... matters of church administration and government ... [which] could only produce by its coercive effect the very opposite of that ... contemplated by the First Amendment." 460 F.2d at 558-60.

The plaintiff's claim in Simpson v. Wells Lamont Corporation, 494 F.2d 490 (5th Cir.1974), was almost identical to that raised here. The Fifth Circuit dismissed a Methodist pastor's suit, arising from his claim that he had been expelled from his parish because of his wife's race. The plaintiff argued that consideration of his suit did not involve religious matters, because he was dismissed for reasons unrelated to religious belief or policy. He too raised the antidiscrimination provision of the Book of Discipline, and the court expressly rejected this argument. It noted that there is no exception to the bar against interfering with matters of church administration. 494 F.2d at 493; see also Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir.1985), cert....

To continue reading

Request your trial
129 cases
  • Van Osdol v. Vogt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 16 Enero 1996
    ...the balance of values weighed conclusively against the government. Id. at 1169. Similarly, Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1355 (D.C.Cir.1990), concerned a Methodist minister who alleged that the United Methodist Church violated various laws,......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University of America
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 14 Mayo 1996
    ...suits by ministers against the church or religious institution employing them. See, e.g., Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1358 (D.C.Cir.1990) (adjudication of minister's Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim against his church would ......
  • Hsu By and Through Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free School Dist. No. 3, s. 332
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 15 Mayo 1996
    ...often furthers individual religious freedom as well. Id. (footnote omitted). See also Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1356 (D.C.Cir.1990); Dowd v. Society of St. Columbans, 861 F.2d 761, 764 (1st Cir.1988); Simpson v. Wells Lamont Corp., 494 ......
  • Smith v. Raleigh Dist. of N.C. Methodist Church
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 27 Julio 1999
    ...where the decision does not involve the church's spiritual functions. Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1171 (emphasis added). See also Minker, 894 F.2d at 1360-1361 (allowing minister to proceed with a breach of contract action against the church noting that the resolution of such a claim potentially w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Splitting the Difference: A Bright-Line Proposal for the Ministerial Exception
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 20-1, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...19. See infra Part II(A) (describing individual and societal interests). 20. Minker v. Baltimore Ann. Conf. of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Gesell, J., concurring) (saying that courts must balance “deep-seated respect for First Amendment religious protectio......
  • Deposing & examining lay witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ...of Raleigh, North Carolina , 213 F.3d 795, 803 (4th Cir. 2000); Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church , 894 F.2d 1354, 1356 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(“[D] etermination of whose voice speaks for the church is per se a religious matter.”); Rayburn v. General Conference o......
  • Deposing & examining the plaintiff
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ...and such contracts are fully enforceable in civil court.” (quoting Minker v. Balt. Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1360 (D.C.Cir. 1990). Continuing: “The government had no role in setting the limits on how the Seminary’s tenured professors may be terminated. Ins......
  • Benton C. Martin, Protecting Preachers from Prejudice: Methods for Improving Analysis of the Ministerial Exception to Title Vii
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 59-5, 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...matters and cannot be reviewed by civil courts"). 61 See, e.g., Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354, 1357-58 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting the McClure reasoning and dismissing the case without balancing the government's interest). 62 McClure v. Sa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT